4chan's moot takes pro-anonymity to TED 2010

The founder of 4chan confounded and entertained TEDsters during his presentation today at the Long Beach theater. His message for the audience was that anonymity is something we should not be so eager to cast aside.

Protection to anonymously harass others. Yeah, well, can't say I find that agreeable. Some subset of what goes on there may be funny, but, then, some of what they perpetuate for LOLz deserves jail time. Should be an interesting "lecture series" video, anyway.

I had to look up what the crap TED even was... sounds like an interesting talk though.

"TED is a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader."

Learning how much anonymity is lost through social sites like facebook (or even less savory ones...) can be a harsh lesson to receive.

As a five year veteran of 4chan, usually lurking, I've been witness to the awesome power that anonymity can blindly wield. The epic rise, and more recently the withering fall, of the site's influence over the interbutz has pushed its notoriety into the public's eye. I'm really curious if the "moral hero's" of the world start to take interest in the community. I have no doubt that if they do, a blind eye will be turned on the more hard to comprehend benefits of this wildly complicated social experiment.

Originally posted by chromal:Protection to anonymously harass others. Yeah, well, can't say I find that agreeable. Some subset of what goes on there may be funny, but, then, some of what they perpetuate for LOLz deserves jail time. Should be an interesting "lecture series" video, anyway.

What kind of delicate psyche must you possess that internet trolls can "harass" you? Just stop reading.

Originally posted by chromal:Protection to anonymously harass others. Yeah, well, can't say I find that agreeable. Some subset of what goes on there may be funny, but, then, some of what they perpetuate for LOLz deserves jail time. Should be an interesting "lecture series" video, anyway.

What kind of delicate psyche must you possess that internet trolls can "harass" you? Just stop reading.

Edit: I just checked out your user profile, 'nuff said.

To be fair, some of the 'harassment' he's talking about occurs offline, and some is in the form of denial of service attacks and such. It's not *just* saying mean things.

I hate to nitpick, but isn't the tale of "Dusty the Cat" an example of how a lack of internet anonymity is a good thing? For a standing ovation, Moot uses a tale of tracking down and holding a user accountable for their actions, and then he pushes a pro-anonymity stance. If that user had been truly anonymous, then he would not have been apprehended.

How anyone can assume that anonymity is a right or even an expecation on the internet is just absolutely amazing.Age, First name, Zip code. We now know everything.

And moot bringing up sites like social networking sites and blaming them for a lack of "non-persistentance" is laughable. Let me guess, all of the > 1 year old posts are wiped clean from the server's hard drives, right?

Hey lookee, there, I can click on a facebook share button right beneath my post...

Just awarning to those who may not know. Don't go to that site if you don't have a thick skin. And by thick, we are talking a veritable super power.

75% of the posts on that site are flamebait/trolling. They are just looking to get a rise out of someone. It is not a friendly community. You may think that you have seen it all, and I won't want to disuade you, but you likely aren't ready, and that isn't a bad thing. People see innocence as a wonderful thing meant to be preserved. There are various levels of innocence, and that site will do what they can to strip them from you, preferably against your will.

However, I think annonymity is an important thing which shouldn't be gotten rid of, whether you are Joe Schmoe or Silence Dogood.

Originally posted by JabberWockey:I hate to nitpick, but isn't the tale of "Dusty the Cat" an example of how a lack of internet anonymity is a good thing? For a standing ovation, Moot uses a tale of tracking down and holding a user accountable for their actions, and then he pushes a pro-anonymity stance. If that user had been truly anonymous, then he would not have been apprehended.

Well, you definitely lose anonymity once you start posting pictures. With a few million users, the chances that someone will recognize something in a picture leads to other people doing their own investigating. It's quite remarkable how easily you can track someone down with a few million eyeballs looking at pictures that the "someone" has posted themselves.

Originally posted by Devin:And moot bringing up sites like social networking sites and blaming them for a lack of "non-persistentance" is laughable. Let me guess, all of the > 1 year old posts are wiped clean from the server's hard drives, right?

I'd be more interested in what Rich Kyanka has to say about the Internet. 4chan always has been and always will be just a shitty forum where people who are banned from SomethingAwful go to whine and post porn.

Originally posted by TheBatmanToMyBruce:I'd be more interested in what Rich Kyanka has to say about the Internet. 4chan always has been and always will be just a shitty forum where people who are banned from SomethingAwful go to whine and post porn.

He halfway-retired because he doesn't want to talk about it; I don't know what you'd think he'd say. I think he did give a talk once, though I forgot what the subject actually was.

And you could say that SA is too serious now that all of those people have been banned.

Originally posted by LucaBones:Please define TED and other acronyms when using them. Even if they're fairly common knowledge in your circles. Especially if you can't figure what it means by going to their horrible website.

Nothing else to add. Carry on.

It's called TED. I've never heard it called anything else. that would be like demanding people always say the Federal Bureau of Investigation. that's less useful than saying the FBI, because they're the FBI.

Originally posted by LucaBones:Please define TED and other acronyms when using them. Even if they're fairly common knowledge in your circles. Especially if you can't figure what it means by going to their horrible website.

Nothing else to add. Carry on.

TED is the name of a "conference". Its not primarily an acronym (although it is that too, standing for Technology, Engineering and Design)..

He seemed puzzled as to why everyone wants their identity tied to so much of what they say and do online.

If you don't tie your behavior to an identity, you can't use it as a reputation. If you appear on major social networks under the same nickname and/or forums and behave friendly there, you will be seen as somewhat trustworthy.

Originally posted by blckgrffn:I had to look up what the crap TED even was... sounds like an interesting talk though.

"TED is a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader."

I'm surprised how many people have never heard of TED. Whether you believe in them or not, many of the famous movements in the past few years have either started at TED, or their leaders have talked at TED. For example, Richard Dawkins gave a talk about atheism at TED before he even released his book about it. The conference has also seen the likes of Al Gore (global warming) and many technologists and philosophers.

Regardless of your feelings on various subjects, I doubt you will not be able to find a talk on something you find interesting, as the topics vary widely.

fa/tg/uy signing in. The choice to be anon is what makes 4chan an interesting place to be. In some cases you do set up an identity but it can be easily shed when you just feel like goofing off or have a comment to add where your identity isn't relevant. There's a lot to be said about the freedom to just post whatever you feel like.

I don't quite see the connection between using sites like Facebook with a complete giving up of anonymity. Perhaps within the context of Facebook itself, but it doesn't prevent the use of anonymous boards/services elsewhere. Anonymity surely has its place in our world and on the Internet, but not everything has to be anonymous.

Originally posted by chromal:Protection to anonymously harass others. Yeah, well, can't say I find that agreeable. Some subset of what goes on there may be funny, but, then, some of what they perpetuate for LOLz deserves jail time. Should be an interesting "lecture series" video, anyway.

What kind of delicate psyche must you possess that internet trolls can "harass" you? Just stop reading.

Edit: I just checked out your user profile, 'nuff said.

OH SNAP. Oh wait, you didn't say anything. You just waved your hands around like a fucktard. EPIC FAIL.

Anyway, I'll reiterate my point that places like 4chan breed a funk of misanthropic bored kids with nothing constructive to do. They should probably spend more time trying to get out of mommy and daddy's basement, and certainly deserve neither protection nor respect.

Originally posted by MatthiasF:LOLCats was on Usenet long before 4chan was around

bs.

I have to say, I started on usenet in the late 1980's, and if there were LOLcats or any sort of graphic-memes going around anywhere near the scale that 4chan jumpstarted, I never saw it.

The name LOLCats was probably created on 4Chan, but I remember quite a number of threads on UseNet with LOLCat like images, emails from cutsie coworkers in the late-90s/early-00's (before 4Chan) and even a few groups on AOL back in the early 90s that centered around the same type of images (but not always centered on Cats). Aside from online, one of my great aunts had a cheesy painting with a dog dressed as a Little Rascal that had a funny caption.

So, as much as the younger generation wants to take credit, the practice has been around a lot longer than you think. Just because it doesn't show up in a Google search, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

The "dangers of anonymity" are laughable when calculated against the dangers of every word you type on the internet being tied to you forever.

I'm sorry Mr. Anderson, we can't let you board this plane. 25 years ago while in college, you consistently posted anti-American remarks and advocated the overthrow of government. You are too great a threat.

or

Hi! We're $BigCorporation. We're suing you for libel over the remarks you made about $widget. $widget was a flop and we feel your words were the core reason for that, and plainly false. Doesn't matter how ridiculous that sounds, we have yearly profits of $3 Billion, while you make $70k/year. Even if you win, you lose.

Hi! We're $BigCorporation. We're suing you for libel over the remarks you made about $widget. $widget was a flop and we feel your words were the core reason for that, and plainly false. Doesn't matter how ridiculous that sounds, we have yearly profits of $3 Billion, while you make $70k/year. Even if you win, you lose.

I recall recently reading something like this happening recently.

Similar things have already happened. Like the flight attendant who was fired for posts on her blog.

The area between internet and privacy is a gray area. And while I firmly believe we are entitled to control our online lives and how accessible that data is, there really is no anonymity on the internet.